Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Asia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

  • adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
  • removing closed AFDs.
  • removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

  • tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Asia}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Asia}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

This list also includes sublists of deletion debates involving articles related to specific Asian countries.

Contents

[edit] Asia

[edit] Afghanistan

[edit] Armenia

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Bangladesh. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

  • adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
  • removing closed AFDs.
  • removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

  • tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Bangladesh}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Bangladesh}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

[edit] Bangladesh

[edit] Prods

[edit] AFDs

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Brunei. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

  • adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
  • removing closed AFDs.
  • removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

  • tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Brunei}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Brunei}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

see also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia

[edit] Brunei

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Cambodia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

  • adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
  • removing closed AFDs.
  • removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

  • tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Cambodia}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Cambodia}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

[edit] Cambodia

[edit] China


[edit] Hong Kong

[edit] Prod

[edit] Afd

[edit] Cfd

[edit] Tfd


 This Hong Kong-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.


[edit] Macau

[edit] Taiwan

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Taiwan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

  • adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
  • removing closed AFDs.
  • removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

  • tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Taiwan}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Taiwan}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.


[edit] Automatic delete candidates

(PROD-tagged) pages, culled from Category:Proposed deletion

Dated: December 12, 2006

Dated: December 11, 2006

Dated: December 10, 2006

Dated: December 7, 2006

Dated: December 6, 2006

[edit] Ongoing deletion debates

Deletion debates culled from WP:AFD and WP:MFD

[edit] Kushan Mitra

Kushan Mitra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

NN journalist. Prod removed, presumably because he won an award, in its first year of inception. Doubt that confers notability per WP:Bio. I implore people to consider that if this goes through, every minor journalist will be considered wp-worthy. Note WP:Bio also calls for multiple independent awards. Hornplease 07:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete NN person, nn award, not much else... SkierRMH,08:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SriPada Pinakapani

SriPada Pinakapani (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Nominated for speedy but appears to have claims of notability, No opinion Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 17:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It needs tidying up, but he's obviously recognised as notable in his field. I've added some links. --Mereda 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable personality. Article needs cleanup and wikification. - Parthi talk/contribs 01:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Padma Bhushan = notable.Bakaman 02:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bakasuprman.Hornplease 08:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bangalore Quiz Group

The Bangalore Quiz Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prod. Idea for merging with Quizzing in India rejected. A quizzing group that is most probably not notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia. Google test doesn't establish notability. I could find three news items, all of which were covered in "Metro Plus/Metro News" sections of the newspaper[1][2][3]. Delete as non-notable. The group is already mentioned in the article Quizzing in India. utcursch | talk 10:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete fail WP:CORP. James086Talk | Contribs 11:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 11:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)\
  • Delete per Utcursch. Not enough here for its own article. Risker 16:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kahini

Kahini (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

No notability justification for including in English-language encyclopaedia Akihabara 12:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Normally, I'd say disambiguate but nothing in the wiki contains the word, so delete as an article on a name with no notability or assertion thereof. MER-C 13:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Dicdef. Delete per nom and MER-C. Moreschi 13:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef, no need to disambiguate. SkierRMH,07:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Brahma Kumaris Info

Non-notable website. Lack of secondary sources. If relevant, material could be merged into Brahma Kumaris after deletion. (Note: that article and involved editors are in the evaluation stage for an ArbCom case. See WP:RFAR#Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and merge any material based on secondary sources to Brahma Kumaris, as nominator. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB, if possible delete under CSD A7. Tarret 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Brahma Kumaris. SkierRMH 02:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge as per nom, and if AfD fails it needs a hell of a lot of clean-up. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 04:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable article. Plenty of independent google hits. The article was only created a mere 24 hours ago. Let's give it some time to develop before debating whether to axe it. Looks like there are already some interesting sources given at the bottom of the article - if given time, more sources will likely be appended as well. Smeelgova 06:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
    • Comment - no, it doesn't have many google hits - a query on "Brahma Kumaris Info" returns hits on info about Brahma Kumaris and not information related to the webpage Brahma Kumaris Info (brahmakumaris.info). The search string "brahmakumaris.info -site:wikipedia.org -site:brahmakumaris.info" (excluding wikipedia and self-references) returns more relevant results, and those aren't too many: 287. Most of which are link listings and message board postings. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment search for link:www.brahmakumaris.info or link:brahmakumaris.info shows zero links to this site. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly using wikipedia for advertisement purposes. It goes against [4] and it does not have any credibility (as far as notability of the author,degrees,level of expertise, etc.) avyakt7 15:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and reads as an advertisement. — Seadog 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in agreement with Jossi's 'no links' comment. IF there are good sources showing that the group the site says it represents exists is notable then I'd suggest refactoring the article to discuss the group. Since their site isn't notable I think this is unlikely. Antonrojo 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. It does make page one of Google for a search on the 'Brahma Kumaris' [5] but despite references on Rick Ross, Cult Information Center, The Cult Awareness and Information Centre and other counter-cult or cult-watch experts, it is probably too early to feature it - so would fail WP:WEB. As there is a documented history going back to the 1930s, I suggest merge with Brahma Kumaris or move to new article on counter-Brahma Kumaris activity and/or page for support groups for cult survivors as per Unification Church, Scientology controversy etc. 195.82.106.244 02:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet WP:WEB criteria #1. Sethie 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 10:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep. It can appropriate to have more than one article on a particular cult or religious group. The Scientology page, for example, currently includes links to some 55 distinct wikipedia articles. The article proposed for deletion hosts information about the Brahma Kumaris organization, current and former members beyond the group's beliefs, practices and history as covered on the Brahma Kumaris page. Specifically, many ex-members have written personal accounts of their experiences, as well as narrating the traumas of other ex-members unable to provide their own accounts, their conflicted lives having ended in suicide. While the content of such pages may (and have been) debated, these references exist, and properly belong to a discussion that considers the cultlike aspects of this particular group. These resources have been aggregated at the BrahmaKumarisInfo website,[6] representing the movement to disseminate knowledge about the group's cultlike behaviors. It is the name of this website that gives the page its title. The high activity of this site, involving thousands of posts from hundreds of former and current members, and splinter group members and ex-members, justifies an additional article about the cultlike behaviors that can be found within the Brahma Kumaris as well as their human, legal and social consequences. Duality Rules 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep or Merge In viewing the current Brahma Kumaris it reads like an Advert of the Cult. I agree with the above by Duality Rules as it does have a large data base and seems to offer support services to the full spectrum of this area of beliefs and given the current condition of the Brahma Kumaris article the need is there as the cult members seem to be sitting on the article.LogicUser 06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of companies based in Lucknow, India

List of companies based in Lucknow, India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. Delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless expanded to include some worthwile information. Wikipedia is not a directory. Most of the companies mentioned in the article don't have their international/national/regional headquarters at Lucknow.

[edit] Gharjamai

Gharjamai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

A very, very vague article. I don't even know what the heck its actually meant to be talking about. There are no references stated and barely any pages that link to it Debaser23 11:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am still working on it. Links will soon be up.

Suggest adding "formal tone" status rather than deletion ? Pete Orme 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite - the term seems to be of note, and even a fairly perfunctory Google search turns up some useful material about it, but the article at present is rather POV and too informally written. ~Matticus TC 11:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - If this page wants to have any chance of survival I think we need more people writing it than Xghostfacexx because so far that user has been the only editor. Debaser23 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean - Searched Google, appears to be a valid term. Needs some formal tone and be written more from the NPOV. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's not a English-language term. It's a term used in many Indian languages (Hindi/Bengali/Gujarati/etc.) for a man who lives in his in-laws house, instead of his own. Most of the stuff in article seems to be exaggerated. There's a movie called "Ghar Jamai", though. utcursch | talk 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The term is used in subcontinent with different pronounciations and synonyms. In Urdu the word "Ghar Damad" is used where damad is the urdu word for son-in-law. The pronounication "ghar jawai" is also used. voldemortuet 18:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and comment - The gujju tranlsations are horrible, but it seems notable.Bakaman 07:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's not an English word and IMO not relevant in an English language encyclopedia. - Parthi talk/contribs 02:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge with Ballia. Agent 86 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balia

Balia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

There already is a page Ballia. This page was created by mistake P.K.Niyogi 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The links are to pages which mean Balia in Bihar and not Uttar Pradesh. The Bihar Balia page is not there. -- P.K.Niyogi 23:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Kunjaan

Kunjaan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Unverifiable claims. The fact that this article claims that "Kunjaan" is a well known hindu term, a google search for "kunjan hindu" currently returns 3 hits. Similarly, an amazon or google books search for this term returns 0 books. This leads me to believe that either the author of this article has misspelled the term, or this is some kind of neologism/hoax. Furthermore, the article uses names like "Siddharth Gautam", which is clearly some kind of parody of Siddhārtha Gautama... Maybe the author is trying to be funny or something? It's not working. -- DDG 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kayal Raja Muricken

Kayal Raja Muricken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Of doubtful notability, unable to find a non-wiki ghit. Also a mess (which I tagged). Akihabara 07:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 08:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:V. MER-C 10:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just H 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep cleanup not a reason to delete.Bakaman 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You haven't addressed my main point - notability. Why is this notable? Akihabara 02:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable. - Parthi talk/contribs 01:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eminent Kaapu

Eminent Kaapu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

incomprehensible list, primarily NN members, defined as notable -thus inherently pov? - of relatively minor subcaste. Prod removed without comment by user with single edit. Hornplease 07:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 09:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - zero context, unreferenced and unwikified. MER-C 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • rename - List of Kaapus.Bakaman 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN no references, etc. TSO1D 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - No context - Parthi talk/contribs 01:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ullas Das

Ullas Das (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

NN author. Prod removed without comment by user with a very few edits, largely in related pages. Bringing it here. for discussion. Hornplease 08:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category discussion debates

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Indonesia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

  • adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
  • removing closed AFDs.
  • removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

  • tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Indonesia}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Indonesia}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

[edit] Indonesia

[edit] Japan

[edit] List of J-pop artists

List of J-pop artists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)
Also, all related articles here

There is no reason why this article cannot be covered by a Category:J-pop artists. Delete as unmanageable listcruft and being completely redundant. Additional reasoning: at least 60% of the mentioned people are not notable enough to have their own article and there is no use in having their names on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
  • Keep, I think there is precedent that we can have both. Lists can do things that categories can't--such as have both romanji and kanji/kana. It's easier and nicer to browse than a category in many ways. gren グレン 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • How so? I find it difficult to search through so many different individual articles when I could just have all the notable musicians in one category. Axem Titanium 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • In categories you may have to go "next 200" several times before finding what you want. On a list you just have to scroll down. Also lists allow for annotation and red-links. The red-links on the list could include significant J-Pop artists. Japanese people are, surprisingly, underrepresented at Wikipedia when you consider that Japan is a large and modern nation.--T. Anthony 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I wasn't going to use T. Anthony's argument... but... In a category you will see a link to Hitomi Yaida. On a list page you can see "Hitomi Yaida (矢井田瞳)" You may not think that's a big deal... but, it can be useful I believe. Lists are more versatile and I just don't see a reason to delete it. gren グレン 13:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I find that being split up into 26 articles is less convenient than pressing a button a few times. I also don't see how catering to lazy users is a reason for keeping such articles. Also, if an artist is notable enough, an article will be created for him/her/them. If not, then including a red link does nothing but spam up Wikipedia when some random obsessed fan decides to clog up the AfD process by writing an article about a non-notable musician. Axem Titanium 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Red-links can help when you're interested in improving coverage of a style of music even if you don't know every individual in it. For example I found List of jazz pianists and List of Brazilian musicians useful in starting articles. I saw a name I wasn't familiar with and then checked if it was notable at music sites I know. Then on creating it the article is now available for those who know more. That's how the article on George Cables got started.--T. Anthony 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll concede that, but the article gives this website as the source for most of the names. If nothing else, that link can be saved while the rest can be deleted and each musician judged on a case-by-case basis. Axem Titanium 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As there is no kanji/kana names in the list right now, we have no way to argue for or against such an addition because we don't know what it will look like. Also, the threshold of "J-POP" is not defined well in the list. Remember, J-POP covers rock, soul, R&B, and other genres, so it's a very wide category. ColourBurst 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • This is valid, the topic may be too broad for a list.--T. Anthony 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - indiscriminate listcruft, no threshhold for inclusion. MER-C 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete List also seems like it could end up being very very long; Japan is a populous country, I'm sure there have been a LOT of bands and singers there over the years that could be called "j-pop". --Brianyoumans 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • *Delete Article - appears to be just a list? Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ugxq 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomm. Saganaki- 12:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Indiscriminate list that's better served by a category. The kana argument is invalid. There are two or three entries on the list which use kana. It's not a big loss. The red link argument is invalid as these titles can be added to the Japan requested articles red link farm where they can be properly fed and looked after: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Japan. --Kunzite 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Not invalid... just hasn't been done yet. There is a big difference. Someday this will be the best of featured lists... no doubt... gren グレン 14:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think both gren's kana/kanji argument and the red link argument are valid. It does serve good as a good starting point when I find wikipedia has zero information on a particular artist. Also converting this to a category is uncessary since it is largely covered by Category:Japanese musicians and Category:Japanese musical groups. This list should be preserved for the unique value it presents not available in these categories. -rydia 14:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, guess what? This is EN Wikipedia, not a place to cater to Japanophile interests. Most people will not know the Japanese kana or kanji. Per User:Kunzite, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to store red links and since this list has zero information on any artist besides the name, this article is a terrible place to start research on them. A sub-category for J-pop musicians is entirely feasible too. In conclusion, this list does nothing unique. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I always use this list over the wiki generated category list because the wiki category generated list sucks. Delete that one how am I suppose to know what Jap related artists I need to be working on if there isn't a list like this to fucking tell me. Let's get back to writing articles instead of nit picking the hell out of wikipedia. ColenFace 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, better served by a category, IMO. My reasons aren't much different from those discussed above. Recury 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Don't delete this way better than category.WaynGravy 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)— WaynGravy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • No reasoning behind this? I guess not. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep How can they be deleting list. Please DONT DELETE LIST.Azininvasive 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)— Azininvasive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep I personally like using this list I find it much easier to use than the categorical method. I don't see why we can't just keep both and let the user decide which they would rather use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CanadianJohn1972 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC).— CanadianJohn1972 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • HAY LOOK! Another single purpose account! Anyway, is there any reason you'd like to impart upon us as to why it's easier besides, of course, that "it just is"? Having both is completely redundant. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as the list can hold red links to be filled later, while a category cannot. — coelacan talk — 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not a bad point, however, in a list like this the red links already have information by way of being in the list. It invites any J-Pop fan to go ahead and fill them in. Over at the requested articles thing, you've got some nipponophiles who might do it, but this draws a more specific crowd. — coelacan talk — 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Is that a bad thing? Notability is difficult to judge when one is a rabid otaku-fan so perhaps it would be better to let the so-called experts at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan (who may or may not be Japanophiles) to start stubs on notable people instead of letting over-zealous fans do the work and end up having their favorite artist on AfD. Anonymous editors are also not allowed to start articles anymore, just FYI. Axem Titanium 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Agreed. Bilaber 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)— Bilaber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Oh darn. I guess I got my hopes up that someone could come up with a reasonable argument for inclusion. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with everything that Coelacan said. --Stzr3 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A category would work just fine here. There are almost no annotations, and redirects can be used to cover alternate spellings in the few cases where there are. Redundant categories (like having the same person in Category:Japanese musicians and the new category) can be avoided by making the new category a sub-category of the pre-existing ones (sort of like how Category:Wives of Brigham Young is a sub-category of Category:Polygamists. Don't ask, it was just the first example that popped into my head...) and putting the people in the sub-category. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: 74.101.255.108 (talk) was just previously solicited many votes with the text "Save the List! They are trying to delete the lists we've work so hard on help put a stop to it. List of J-pop Artists Vote to keep our precious list!!!" Furthermore, they are impersonating Bilaber (talk • contribs). Please take this into consideration when closing the discussion. --Iamunknown 22:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Red links to nonexisting articles are useful. Seeing the performer's name in romaji and kanji together is useful. Neier 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete the 26 sub lists though. Neier 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm going to refer again to User:Kunzite's argument that Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to have red links than this page. Also, you are assuming that the majority of users will be able to derive some use out of seeing the kanji. This argument happens to be faulty as well, since, let's take Megumi Hayashibara as an example. When listing her name for the category, one can simply type "[[Category:J-pop artists|Hayashibara, Megumi (林原 めぐみ)]]" in order to add her kana/kanji to what shows up in the category. Axem Titanium 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • First of all, I like how the reasoning has changed since the AFD was opened. "not notable enough to have their own article" has morphed to "well, list them someplace else". So, are all red links in articles a bad idea? Red links should just be added to a project which may or may not be accessed by the users who read the article (list) and would otherwise have an incentive to create new information for Wikipedia? And the premise that there is no room for both categories and lists for a topic has been debated many times in the past, and judging from the 110 lists in Category:Lists of musicians by genre alone, I would have to assume that there must be a good reason to keep both the lists and categories. Adding kanji to the name in the categorization is an interesting idea (a rarity for AFD lately, it seems), and I think I'll bring that up at WP:MOS-JA where Japanese naming conventions are discussed. It still wouldn't change the fact that the list is useful. The 26 sub-lists are less useful, and I agree that they can be deleted, because they duplicate info on the main list. Neier 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I added that addendum because User:T. Anthony explained that some notable artists may not have articles simply because of Wikipedia's systemic bias against non-English speaking subjects. The notability of a person is independent of the state of having an article and I changed my argument to say that this list is not the proper place where articles should be requested and that Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is the proper place to do that. Axem Titanium 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you. However there are reasons some of us prefer working on lists rather than requested articles. I worked on Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music#Jazz for a time, but then went back to working on lists. Why? Because frankly lists are usually better done. Requested articles is often just a dumping ground that mixes notable people with some local musician someone like. Lists actually tend to have more legitimately notable people because lists are
        1-Easier to access for most people, particularly those interested in a topic.
        2-Often made by people interested in the subject.
      • That said I'm not happy with some lobbying I've seen on this.--T. Anthony 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Lists can be more informative than categories, by adding more information than a simple article title, and by arranging the subjects in a more informative way than a category can. However, beyond the red links, this list does not yet take advantage of the advantages a list can have over a category. Keep, but make the list more useful. Dekkappai 23:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Categories can have organization too. It's not too difficult to simply have sub-cats for a Category:J-pop artists which would include things like Category:J-rock artists, or the like. In that way, the categories could organize the articles in the same way you mentioned, if not better. For example, if someone wanted to find other visual kei artists, they could simply click on the sub-cat "Visual kei artists" and be linked to all the other artists in that group. However, unless you want to spam the link to this article on every single J-pop artist's page, it would be difficult to locate this page in the first place and even then, it would be difficult to find the artist you're looking for. If there's something else you'd like to add, please do. Axem Titanium 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, with stipulations (Edit conflict) This list has the potential to be useful, but needs some serious work first. First and foremost, the list needs to be renamed, to something along the lines of Japanese musical artists. It includes not only J-pop artists, but it also claims to include J-Rock, Visual Kei, and Japanese hip hop artists as well. Second, loose the sublists. All the information contained in them can be found in the main article, really the only reason for a sublist in this case would be if the page over the size limit, which it is not. If there are any sublists to be in there, I would say that this should be made into a hierachical list, because the list says it includes 4 distinct genres. Third, the article needs to have some serious clean-up work done. Mainly, it directly conflicts with WP:MOS-JA, specifically the section on modern names by going in Japanese, rather than Western order. If people have a problem with all the red links, there probably wouldn't be any problem with them being summarily moved over to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan; somebody wanted them, might as well see if someone can make a decent article on them. I personally don't have a problem with them, though, List of violinists has plenty of red links, and its more well-done than this list. Finally the list should definantly note that it is incomplete; I'm sure that some of the Japanese musical artists we have on Wikipedia who fall into the genres covered by this list. --Limetom 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You go on about how it is too broad and doesn't follow certain style guidelines but do you have any specific reasons as to why a category would not be suitable for the same purpose? Axem Titanium 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I never said that it was too broad, just improperly titled. I find that lists are generally tend to be, when well-maintained, much more user-friendly, which is the basis of why I feel it should be kept. It needs clean-up, but lists have value in that it make it more accessable for the average user. If you take note, most musical genres have both lists of aritsts within them and categories relating to them; this seems to be standard in almost every single case. To give a very abbreviated list, see List of metalcore bands and Category:Metalcore musical groups, List of death metal bands and Category:Death metal musical groups, List of jazz musicians and Category:Lists of jazz musicians, etc. There doesn't seem to be any reason why there cannot both be a list and a category. Each serve their own purpose, and there really isn't any reason why you can't have both. --Limetom 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • For the sake of argument, is there anything those lists provides that the categories don't? Personally, I find it easier to navigate between articles within a category. For example, let's say that hypothetically, I wanted to from Most Precious Blood to Death by Stereo. With a category, I could simply click on the category link at the bottom to see a list of articles within the category. For the list option, I would fist have to know that a list exists (which most people who randomly browse Wikipedia don't), then find it, then find the person I was looking for, if I didn't already know the name. That seems like a much more involved and unintuitive process compared to just having a category. The point is that we don't have two articles on Isaac Newton so we shouldn't have two articles documenting the same thing (in this case, J-pop artists), especially since one of them seems to do it better. Axem Titanium 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not about how long it is, it's about the J-Pop artists! I'm sorry if i sound stupid, but I believe we need to keep this list, because i've used it before, and it is very helpful, sometimes I try to find new and exciting bands using this very list. What would be the main point of destoying it? Would it be to long? There are plenty of other categories where the list is far more longer than this mere list, eg. The List of famous left-handed people is one such example.Blkeddie! 02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that if this article does not exist that they will be any less than J-pop artists? Do you have any specific reasons why a list is preferable to a category? The presence of another list does not justify this one's. It simply means that someone with a critical eye has not yet questioned its value. I can say right now that I can see myself nominating that article for deletion in preference to a category as well. Axem Titanium 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment For whatever its worth, after far too much work I took the red links out of the article, and made it conform to WP:MOS-JA naming conventions. --Limetom 07:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Box

Dragon_Box (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There's already a page by the name of Dragonbox. If anything, the very little information on the page should be transferred to the Dragonbox article. VelocityEX 21:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect and merge per nominator. -Toptomcat 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ugxq 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close and redirect It's not really a deletion--just redirect it. --Kunzite 13:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kublai Khan's Lost Fleet

Kublai_Khan's_Lost_Fleet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Orphaned stub, the topic is fully covered in Mongol invasions of Japan Kmorozov 11:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Better delete. No need to duplicate stuff where it is not needed. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mongol invasions of Japan -- Whpq 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Whpq. Phrase seems to have non-trivial use per Google. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ugxq 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A redirect could have been made without an AFD discussion. --Kunzite 13:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree on delete the content of this article is also mentioned in Kublai Khan. This should be merged & deleted with this and the Mongol invasions article. Minnaert 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment merge and delete is a violation of the GFDL. We need to keep the article history if there is to be a merge. Deletion gets rid of the history. --Kunzite 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if expanded. This is actually a rather notable historical event/fleet which had some important consequences which merit its having its own article. However, as it stands now the article doesn't really reflect that; it certainly needs expansion from someone more knowledgeable about that topic than I. Since it is verified and notable, however, it shouldn't be deleted even though, as it stands now, it is little more than a repeat of information available elsewhere. --The Way 06:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sachiko Murata

Sachiko Murata (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

nn teacher Nekohakase 16:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think this person meets WP:BIO. A google search turns up numerous references to her works, particularly in the context of "recommended reading." She seems to be notable in her field. Deli nk 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rice (Japanese band)

Rice (Japanese band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Deprodded. NN band - releases all seem to be independent. WP:MUSIC. Delete - čřž čřžtalk 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. - čřž čřžtalk 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non notable Astrotrain 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non notable Metro Mover 22:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:BAND Has had a charted hit on any national music chart -> [7] #67 on Oricon was the highest. They had two other ranking. If it were a US or UK band it would likely be in the Wikipedia. --Kunzite 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fated Souls

Fated Souls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Self-published, fanfiction-like game. The article does not cite multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (Multiple independant published works refereing to this topic do not seem to exist.) The subject of the article does not seem to have won any awards. This article totally fails WP:WEB. Kunzite 19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kunzite 19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment this is not a japanese-related articles.--Ongep 07:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fangame, the end (compounded by the fact that it takes place in the human wasteland known as GaiaOnline) Danny Lilithborne 00:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - there was a problem with the link to this discussion in the AfD template on the Fated Souls article (where the nominators reason for deletion instead of the link to this AfD discussion appeared). I have fixed it. --tgheretford (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Worthless roleplay topic on Gaia. I especially liked the part about the "private anime." Hilarious, guys. Moogy(talk) 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- This is honestly becoming a private anime. Creator-and-all is working with an anime source team to convert it to an anime. I felt it was only right to include it in some form or another. Is there something wrong against stating the truth behind a reasonable subject? Raftacon 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "Truth" or "existence" is not a factor for inclusion in Wikipedia. You can read the inclusion criteria for this type of article here. I've not seen a "private anime" that meets Wikipedia notability inclusion criteria. It looks like any of 100 fanfiction products that I've seen and read over the internet. This one doesn't seem to meet the inclusion criteria either. When it gets animated and gets a national release, come back and see us. --Kunzite 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment -- If you say so, yet I do still believe this is a dire mistake. Raftacon 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flash Flash Revolution

As Ashibaka said when he prodded it, there are no reliable sources. Nothing comes up in the Google news archive. No other reliable sources are listed in the article or can be found. --SPUI (T - C) 09:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The article does not meet the notability requirements for either WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE, or WP:GAMES, whichever one is more applicable here. The article is also not verified (WP:V) by reliable source(s). --Limetom 12:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I doubt this Flash game is cited in any reputable source. Ashibaka tock 16:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to new article Dance Dance Revolution simulators and clones with other articles such as StepMania, Dance With Intensity, pydance, Text Text Revolution. Failing that, redirect to Dance Dance Revolution, which has a section on Simulators and clones, since the history doesn't need to be deleted from view. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-09 18:58Z
  • Normally I'm all in favor of deleting things as non-notable, but at this one I hesitate. It's been active for at least four years now (I think; seems like I've been playing it at least that long) and has a million logins (not users, but whatever). 1400 people are currently playing. (I am just throwing out stats that I see on the site right now.) It does not meet the cited notability threshholds, but perhaps we should consider ignoring all rules? Deltopia 21:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I highly doubt those stats, and that's the problem with using primary sources. Ashibaka tock 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I read through the first nine pages of google hits (after searching on "Flash Flash Revolution") and got a zillion links to the game, mirrors, and blogs, and virtually nothing written -about- the game. Frustrating. But without secondary sources, you're right, it lacks WP:V. Changing my vote to delete or merge. Deltopia 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Keep. Frustrating, yes, but as an administrator of the site, I must object. It'd be nice if we had a PR team behind the website getting us noticed in major tech blogs and news publications, but we don't. If someone doubts the number of users of our website, they can go to the forums[8] and see the vast scope of the website for themselves. We have 76,000+ active users - a number greater than DDR Freak's total number of logins. According to Alexa [9], we get more pageviews than either DDR Freak or Konami's official website - yet those two articles are certainly notable. I can also share some behind-the-scenes server statistics: this past Friday alone, FFR was played 309,757 times. FFR is kind of a web anomaly - it's not very often that such a massive community is built around a flash game. Though primary sources may not be the best sources, I'd rather use the website as a source than delete or merge the article altogether. I'd say that IAR seems to be crying out to apply to articles about subjects that are exceptions to the rule, so I'd say it applies in this instance. - Chardish 17:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Quarl. --REALiTY 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kjbd 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP - This article has been around quite some time, as the website has been aswell. The site boasts over one million members, has over 300,000 active games daily, has been featured on several TV shows (Notably The Screen Savers), has been featured on several high profile blogs (Joystiq, Kotaku), and boasts music from several high profile artists, especially in the Bemani scene.
SPUI, I believe this is a bad faith nomination. SPUI has been banned from Flash Flash Revolution in the past, and perhaps has a persnoal vendette against the site? I don't know, but this is a notable website, and deserves an entry on Wikipedia. --lightdarkness (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge and redirect per Quarl if you must. No reliable sources. Voretustalk 03:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reliable sources. I made the article but I honestly don't care, it sucks anyway. Moogy(talk) 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This feels like a bad faith vote. Why would you make an article and then later vote for its deletion? If reliable sources are important to you, shouldn't you have started the article with reliable sources to begin with? - Chardish 07:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The article was made more than two years ago. Voretustalk 14:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - pretty notable, on par with other simulators such as StepMania. Its site has an Alexa rating of 28,256, which isn't bad. --FlyingPenguins 03:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep By any common sense testthis is notable, and there seems to not be the slightest problem verifying: it exists and is a game site. The many links about the game, though none of them individually demonstrates it, seen as a group, they do. DGG 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Kaira

Tommy Kaira (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The article was nominated for speedy deletion under G11 (spam), but doesn't qualify. A7 (non-notability) doesn't apply either, because there is an assertion of notability. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry if it is rubbish i just thought it should be created because it was the only read link on GT car lists so i thought it was worth creating, but everyones entitled to their opinions I understand, I dont mind if it gets deleted I just thought it was a good idea thats all...DINOMAN 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep About 47,000 GHits; not a vast number, but clearly the Company possesses some notability.--Anthony.bradbury 19:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks notable to me, despite the article being a sentence. A brief web browse shows it could easily satisfy WP:CORP. CiaranG 19:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and cleanup! per CiaranG FirefoxMan 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - company exists and is notable, although this article is presently a sub-stub (I'm going to see what I can do about that). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kjbd 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ran (Bob and George)

Ran (Bob and George) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is a webcomic character. According to the article, it's a recurring cameo role in a sprite webcomic. As popular as Bob and George may be with it's 60k Alexa rank, it's cameo characters aren't notable or encyclopedic. - hahnchen 02:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hikari Hino

Hikari Hino (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Person is not notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable, particularly as no entry in Japanese wikipedia Akihabara 04:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Doesn't seem to meet WP:PORN BIO. MER-C 04:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and does not meet WP:PORN BIO; she has a redlinked entry on the Japanese AV女優一覧 (List of AV Actresses). If she's not notable enough to have an article in Japanese, she's more than likely not notable enough to have one in English. --Limetom 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Risnm 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The use of WP:PORN BIO for Japanese performers is highly controversial, as many editors are of the opinion that the Japanese industry is sufficiently different from the American industry that many of the provisions of the guideline are inapplicable. However, the article as it stands does not seem to claim any real notability even within a Japanese context; the filmography section is not impressively long and does not indicate how major a role Hino played in the cited titles, no appearances in other media are mentioned, etc. — Haeleth Talk 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Mainstream source (adult sources would no doubt show more) Japanese Amazon shows 24 DVDs currently available for this actress. How many American porn stars have 24 DVDs at Amazon? The Japanese and American pornography industries are different and to ignore those differences is to create cultural bias at Wikipedia. To put things in perspective, consider a Japanese pornographic superstar like Hitomi Kobayashi. "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..." [10] So, "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" fails the American 100-film test. For more comparison, the nominating editor has recently edited at a one-sentence stub on an actress with one (1) known, minor appearance in one (1) known film, verified only by one (1) link to IMDB. Yet he previously mass-nominated articles in this category for deletion on "notability" grounds. 24 DVDs at Amazon is certainly a sign of reaching a broad audience, and far more notable than the subject of the other article. If this article needs improving, let's improve it. My online time is taken up with re-instating a list the was deleted through what I am convinced are dishonest means. Once I've got that list (lists now) back up, I fully expect to spend my time improving these articles. I'll try to do some work on this one today. Dekkappai 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    1. The article had been tagged for questionable importance since September. Nothing had been done to add more meat to it.
    2. There is no article for this actress on Japanese WP.
    3. There is no established guidelines or rules here to say that "24 DVDs at Amazon" makes a Japanese porn actress notable. I personally don't think it does.
    4. What other editing I do and what other articles I nominate for deletion is irrelevant to the fact that this actress seems non-notable and hardly anything had been done since the article's existence to assert her notability. However, if you think the Helen Kim article I edited should be nominated for deletion, by all means, nominate it. I myself question that actress's notability. Heck, I'll nominate the article myself.
Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think the Helen Kim stub should be deleted. I think it should be improved. Deleting it would prevent a better article from being written on Helen Kim, and thereby remove valid information from Wikipedia. The exact same thing goes for the more notable, and better developed article on Hikari Hino. I don't edit there, but I watch the Japanese Wikipedia. Many recently red-linked actresses there have new articles, and I won't be at all surprised to see one on Hikari Hino started soon, since she clearly deserves one. Dekkappai 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add - I understand you are having a difficult time assuming good faith. But let me point out that I tagged this article with the importance tag three months ago[11]. When I nominated it for deletion[12], it had the exact same content in the article as it did when I tagged it for importance three months ago. Namely, it had two sentences, with a short filmography. I am perfectly justified in nominating this article. Furthermore, I want to repeat that there is absolutely no criteria anywhere on English WP that says "24 DVDs on Amazon" establishes notability for Japanese porn actresses. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above and please see systemic bias Baristarim 19:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If anything, having 24 DVDs available at Amazon indicates that Japanese "porn" actresses are not in the same league with "porn" actresses of other cultures, and to try to force one standard across all cultures is a good example of bias as mentioned above. Neier 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (Edit conflict) I really doubt this is a case of systemic bias. She is non-notable, and if there isn't a Japanese article on her, there probably shouldn't be an English one. A quick Google search brings up mostly adult sites and such, and I really don't see any verifiable sources in either an English or a Japanese search. I have nothing against an Idol having an English page, its just that there are no reliable sources that prove her notability; even if modified to include Japanese versions of things, I don't see her passing WP:PORN BIO. --Limetom 23:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The bias comes in treating the Japanese and American porn industries as if they were the same. Obviously they are not. Creating standards for one which the other is expected to pass is a way of creating cultural bias at Wikipedia. Suppose those of us interested in the Japanese side said an actress needed to have 10 videos at Amazon in order to pass notability. How many American porn actresses would pass? Also, if you know anything about Japanese popular culture, you know that these actresses/idols are far more visible, and therefore more notable in Japan than their American equivilants are in the U.S. When I was in Japan, I saw models and actresses exactly like this one all over TV, not to mention magazines, newspapers, photo books... all in standard book stores, not hidden away in an adult book shop. Dekkappai 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The bottom line is, there is no seperate criteria for Japanese porn stars here. So she has 24 DVDs listed on Amazon. Why and how does that make her notable? Why does that make her stand out in the industry she's in? These are questions that have never been answered. There are hundreds and thousands of different industries and how they are perceived in different cultures. For example, calligraphy artists are probably more well-known in East Asia than they are in Western countries. The question here is - how does having 24 DVDs listed on Amazon establish that she's widely known? Do we have any information on how many people are buying these DVDs from Amazon? And exactly how many consumers would make her notable? What if only 10 people purchased her DVDs on Amazon? The American porn industry and the Japanese porn industry are not exactly the same, but maybe you just have to accept the possibility that the average Japanese porn star is simply not very notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment amazon japan is a major retail outlet, and i fail to see why you are requesting obviously unattainable information such as the number of sales. are the notability of north american porn stars hinging on their sales on amazon.com? do you really wish to establish a guideline for all porn stars to sell a verifiable number of videos? it is very true that the japanese porn industry is different from the north american one. it is also very true that one shouldn't base notability on the "probability" that someone might not be notable, but facts such as proven presence in a major retail outlet.--Hexvoodoo 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The notability of North American porn stars do not hinge on their sales on Amazon. And if they had 24 DVDs on Amazon without meeting WP:PORN BIO, they would be considered non-notable. If we know how many DVDs this person is actually selling, we can try to establish notability. Given that we have no such information about DVD sales on Amazon, saying "24 DVDs on Amazon" is an unverifiable claim to notability. Like I've been saying, how does "24 DVDs on Amazon" establish notability? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment getting unobtainable info such as unit sales on amazon japan (just like it's impossible to get sales numbers on amazon.com) doesn't directly meet anything in WP:PORN BIO, however it establishes the fact that she has been prolific in the short time she's been in the business, which is a criteria in porn bio. --Hexvoodoo 18:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How exactly does it establish that she's "prolific"? Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Do we even know that some of those 24 DVDs don't show the same exact scenes? I ran a search for her on Japanese Amazon, and even though I don't read Japanese, between my English and Chinese reading, I can spot which DVDs are simply "best of" videos that show scenes that are in other DVDs. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment i think it's safe to say that amazon japan doesn't violate anything in Wikipedia:Verifiability. if it says hikari hino is in these dvds, i am going to believe it. even if we want to be picky and discard anything mentioning "best of" (and btw we can't verify that those are indeed compilations featuring duplicate scenes), we still have 19 dvds in 1.5 years. that is still prolific --Hexvoodoo 19:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not disputing that she is in those videos. I'm questioning how the availability of those videos on Amazon automatically qualifies her as having a prolific career. Like I said, what if only 10 people ever bought those videos from Amazon? Is she still notable then? That's completely unverifiable and it's an unverifiable claim for notability. Besides, who exactly decided that "24 DVDs on Amazon" is enough for Japanese porn actresses? Who came up with that arbitrary number? I don't see any guidelines that mention this. What if she had 20 DVDs? 15? At what number is notability achieved? I can completely agree that the American and Japanese porn industries are different, but what makes "24 DVDs on Amazon" notable, and who gets to decide that it's sufficient? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment first of all, it is complete conjecture when you say maybe only 10 people bought her dvds. just like if i were to say maybe a million people bought her dvds. since this is completely unattainable information, not just for hikari hino but for just about any porn star, we should leave out baseless conjectures. second, there is no set number that universally defines prolificness, and that is good, because you acknowledge that japanese porn industry is different from american porn industry. in my opinion, and those who have voted keep, more than 1 dvd per month is prolific by japanese standards. thus she meets the prolificness criteria of WP:PORN BIO, and is notable. --Hexvoodoo 21:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that the information is unattainable is actually my point - it's unverifiable, so yes, we should leave that information out. Which means "24 DVDs on Amazon" does not necessarily show notability. And the filmography section of the article actually only lists 11 videos. Furthermore, the prolific guideline in WP:PORN BIO specifically states "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche. I'm afraid that has not been shown yet. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment yes leave the sales information out (which means conjecture about how her dvds might have low sales is pointless) as it is unverifiable. however, being on an established retail outlet with more than 1 dvd per month does show that she has been prolific - which is the point. what is actually listed in her article's filmography is obviously not a full list (again, see amazon japan), and having an incomplete filmography is of course not a reason for deletion either. her movies fall into both "asian" and "busty" genres, so she qualifies. --Hexvoodoo 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again, the availability of those DVDs do not serve to establish how well known she is. We don't know how many people actually buy those DVDs. Thus it's an unverifiable claim. And she may or may not fall under the busy genre, but to put her in the Asian genre, you'd be guilty of the same cultural bias that's been mentioned here. That's a western perspective. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this is getting comical. you just agreed that sales numbers shouldn't (italics yours) be used at all, because it's all conjecture. you also seemed to understand that 24 dvds on amazon japan is only being used to indicate prolificness, a criteria for notability, not to directly prove notability. now you turn around and sing the old tune that amazon records are no good for notablity because you don't know the sales numbers. let me repeat this again: amazon records are to prove prolificness, and don't use the sales numbers as an argument because they are not known. unless you have something new to say about this - i have established prolificness. now let's go to the gnere part. she is a metric G cup and her films are in the busty genre. and yes the asian genre is culturally biased, yet it is an established genere. i however am not using my cultural bias to attempt to delete an article for a foreign actress because i think "maybe only 10 people bought her dvds".--Hexvoodoo 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think its a safe I know about as much about Japanese culture as you, Dekkappai. But as the policy stands right now, she's not notable. Perhaps it would be better to restart the discussion about Idols (currently in the archives) of WT:PORN BIO? Also it would probably help to put a notice on the WP:BIAS. As the policy is right now, she's not notable. After looking over all of the relevant information, I would have to say that the policy, in my opinion, probably does need to be changed. For now, I'm going to stick with policy, though. --Limetom 01:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I certainly didn't mean to question your knowledge of Japanese culture or anything else, Limetom, and hope you didn't interpret me that way. I only meant to point out the differences in the cultures and the inadequacy of the policy in this case. I missed the discussion going on in those two areas, but will try to bring up the issue there. I understand your position-- the policy is inadequate, but it is the policy. My position is that policies, when seen to be inadequate or obviously biased, should be ignored, interpreted or modified. Regards. Dekkappai 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets criteria 7 of WP:PORN_BIO: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche." She has been in at least 24 videos in a year and a half; prolific by japanese adult industry standards. the fact that she is not yet in the japanese wiki is not a valid reason to delete - it is not a criteria in WP:PORN_BIO. --Hexvoodoo 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:PORNBIO is only good for North American English-language porn. It is systematically biased WP:BIAS against *everything* else everywhere in the world (including North America, since there's Spanish and French language porn). WP:IGNORE PORNBIO is useless in this case, ignore it. 70.51.9.22 07:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I was about to go gripe about the 100-film requirement at the Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) guideline, but now I see that this old requirement has been replaced with, "5. Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets" So there is no reason to delete this article for lack of notability. 24 DVDs is "multiple," and Amazon is a mainstream media outlet. Notability is established. Dekkappai 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Amazon is not a media outlet. It's a retail store. Media outlets are news channels, mainstream magazines, TV, mainstream movies, etc etc. Criteria #5 specifically points to Air Force Amy as an example of this. The article for Air Force Amy was kept because she appeared on HBO multiple times, not because her vidoes appeared on Amazon multiple times. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • "Amazon is not a media outlet." Sure, sure, Hong. Look on the bright side. At least your effort to delete the Helen Kim article seems to be going very well. Dekkappai 23:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Really have no idea what the point of that comment is. Helen Kim is not notable and an article on her ought to be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability has now been established as per WP:PORN BIO criteria #5 #6; from my knowledge 24 films in a little over a year is notable in Japan. --Limetom 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "from my knowledge 24 films in a little over a year is notable in Japan" Correct, Limetom. To repeat: Japanese pornographic superstar Hitomi Kobayashi. "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..." [13] The dead-enders are going to argue for deletion no matter how absurd the argument becomes... e.g. "Amazon is not a media outlet." Dekkappai 17:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I refer you to how the US government defines a media outlet[14] (check section 323). And again, number of DVDs on Amazon is not an established guideline for notability. It's an arbitrary number that you've came up with. How about if a Japanese porn actress has 20 DVDs on Amazon? What about 15? At what point is she not notable, and who gets to decide on this number? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • deleteIf there ever was a case that showed the absurdity of numerical guidelines, this is it. I would take this article more seriously if one on this actress had been in the Japanese WP.DGG 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No compelling evidence of notability. "Because she's Japanese typical standards do not apply" is not an argument for establishing notability. Fairsing 05:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "5. Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets" 24 DVDs is "multiple," and Amazon is a mainstream media outlet. Notability is established. "International subjects must pass an American test of notability" is a recipe for cultural bias. Dekkappai
      • Once again, Amazon is not a media outlet. It is a retail store. A media outlet is TV, movies, newspapers, magazines, etc etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Additional Comment to Fairsing Compare: 1 1/2 years after her debut, Hikari Hino has 24 DVDs at Amazon. Japanese pornographic superstar Hitomi Kobayashi. "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..." [15] Dekkappai 17:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Number of DVDs on sale at Amazon has not been an established criteria for determining notability of anybody. Also, many of those DVDs simply contain repeated scenes she has done. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (Though I'm trying to prevent getting sucked into another of Hong's famous absurdist arguments.) 1.) If Amazon is not a media outlet, All Media Outlet had better change its name fast. 2.) Amazon is a reliable source for proving that said media exists. 3.) No one is setting up an arbitrary number, we are following Wikipedia's guidelines: "5. Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets" 4.) "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" made 39 movies in 16 years. 24 DVDs is clearly notable there. Dekkappai 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll be happy to address these points: 1) "All Media Outlet" derives its name from "outlet store". And also, the US government probably has a better definition of "media outlet" than the brand name of a retail store. 2) Nobody is denying that media exists. The issue here is whether or not this person is notable, and number of DVDs on Amazon is an unverifiable and arbitrary claim to notability. 3) This person has not appeared in mainstream media outlets. There is seemingly no mention of her ever been in mainstream films, mainstream TV, mainstream magazines, etc. 4) "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" Hitomi Kobayashi (小林由美) is apparently not even famous enough to have an entry on Japanese Wikipedia. So what does that say about this particular actress who is not "Japan's Queen of Adult Video"? Who proclaimed Hitomi Kobayashi "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" anyway? Her manager? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Note the above editor mis-links to the non-existant Japanese Wiki article on Kobayashi YUMI, not the existant one on HITOMI. But then, the above editor helped delete an extensive list of Japanese actresses claiming that it was impossible to determine that they even exist.
      • Kobayashi Hitomi (小林ひとみ) aka Matsumoto Kaori (松本かおり) Debut: 1986; Birthday: 1965/9/2 Tokyo, Height: 151cm, B:82cm()-W:58cm-H:88cm, Blood Type: AB, Shoe Size: 21.0cm Avidol Profile, News: July 18, 2003, News: March 25, 2004; Amazon: VHS: 98, DVDs: 88, books: 42, Popular Music: 18

Though the above editor has obviously never heard of her, she was famous enough for Nikkatsu to hire to star in her own theatrical film series in 1987, to stave off collapse, according to: Weisser, Thomas and Yuko Mihara Weisser. 1998. Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia: The Sex Films. Vital Books : Asian Cult Cinema Publications. Miami. ISBN 1889288527, p.155, 221-222 Dekkappai 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I searched for her name in all kanji characters. Still, who decided that Kobayashi Hitomi is the benchmark to measure the notability of all other Japanese porn stars? Did Nikkatsu hire Hikari Hino to star in her own theatrical film series? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kirby series characters

Kirby series characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This page is cluttered and redundant. Every character on this page except one already has a listing or entire article devoted to them. There is no rhyme or reason as to what characters are included here.

We have a category for Kirby characters, so there isn't a need for a bloated list like this.

More prominent characters have their own articles. Side characters like enemies have the Kirby series enemies, Kirby series bosses and Kirby series mini-bosses pages, among others.

Some of the information is contradictory or just too different from what is stated on the character's main article.

  • I propose moving some of the descriptions here to the other pages if there isn't already an adequate decription there, and then deleting this page. Ivyna J. Spyder 06:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge & Delete Even a quick comparison between the Kirby main page and this shows that there's some irreconciliable differences. SkierRMH,08:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Not a valid vote - that loses contributor information. Should that be interpreted as a "merge and redirect"? Zetawoof(ζ) 10:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • So if I go through and merge the rest of these sub-articles into their main articles (if there's any information in them that isn't already included in the main articles so we don't lose contributions) then can we delete the page? Or somehow redirect it to the Kirby characters category that lists them all anyway. Ivyna J. Spyder 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Basically, if some of the content got reused elsewhere, then the article should be redirected to there. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tuners 09:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 14:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there's anything that can be salvaged and parsed to the shorter character articles/lists, do it. Otherwise, delete as listcruft. Axem Titanium 20:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete: I agree with cutting down the article length since there are already so many seperate pages with these characters placed in them and either trim down a majority of information and send it to any neccessary parts or just delete this page. -Adv193 00:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect Danny Lilithborne 21:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to appropriate articles (if any merging needs done), then redirect somewhere (possibly Kirby (Nintendo)). --- RockMFR 23:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge (if there is anything there to merge) and either redirect or turn into a Disambiguation page to the other Kirby character pages. Donno if the last one is possible/kosher, but hey. -Ryanbomber 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The world of the shining prince

The world of the shining prince (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- This is a book review, not an encyclopedic article.. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Kchase T 06:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shoko Goto

Shoko Goto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

NN person. And now that WP:PORNBIO is a guideline, I thought that this article deserved another AFD vote. Previous discussion can be found here. Dismas|(talk) 10:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete it is possible this article should exist on the Japanese wikipedia but not here. James086Talk | Contribs 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Theoretically, since all the Wikipedias have the same goal, then any genuinely notable article on one should appear on all. Confusing Manifestation 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Here we go again. Expect to see every article in the Japanese pornography category targeted for deletion because it doesn't meet American standards of notability. The Japanese and American pornography industries are different and to ignore those differences is to create cultural bias at Wikipedia. To put things in perspective, consider a Japanese pornographic superstar like Hitomi Kobayashi. "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..." [16] So, "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" fails the American test. Goto Shoko has been a major presence in the Japanese adult field since 2004. Mainstream outlet Amazon Japan currently sells 23 DVDs, 1 book and 1 VHS tape featuring this model. How many American pornographic actresses can make the same claim? In other words, within only 2 years, her output as listed at Amazon (there are adult-video only sites that will list more) has nearly tied the "Queen of Adult Video." Dekkappai 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep shoko goto easily meets at least two of the seven criterion.
    1. "Performer has been a Playboy Playmate (of the Year or Month) or a Penthouse Pet (of the Year or Month), or similar titles in other major magazines." she has been featured in Bachelor magazine, a premier big-bust adult magazine in japan. Bachelor has consistently featured well-known western models like chloe vevrier and linsey dawn mckenzie, and is similar to Score in north america.
    2. "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche" shoko goto has had high output in the big-bust genre of videos despite being in the business for only two years. as verified by the number of her videos on amazon japan (a mainstream outlet that does not list all of her work), as dekkappai has already demonstrated.
i must talk about a comment made earlier that the article could be in the japanese wikipedia but not here. if it is important enough to be in the japanese wiki, why is an english equivalent of it not important enough to be here? --Hexvoodoo 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep AFAIK notable enough in the Japanese porn scene. It's not acceptable to hold people from non-English-speaking nations to higher standards of notability - it's not a 'notable to Americans' or 'notable to the British' or whatever standard. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above (except nom). --Oakshade 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment So that we don't have to go through this again, wouldn't it be better for you, Dekkappai and Hexvoodoo, to either update the articles so that these questions of notability aren't consistently brought up or have the guideline updated to better outline who would and would not be notable enough for inclusion? The latter of those would probably be simplest. Considering not very many people outside of Asia, or possibly outside of just Japan, may know how big/established/notable/etc. Bachelor magazine is, it would probably save you a lot of headaches having to justify your keep votes. Dismas|(talk) 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I apologize if I was a bit cranky up there, Dismas. You were probably unaware of the history behind this-- Earlier in the year, a certain editor who has expressed hostility to this subject on numerous occasions, nominated an extensive "List of Japanese Female Porn Actors" for deletion, edit-warred it down into only blue-links, claimed its function would be served by a category, and then succeeded in having it deleted. He then proceeded to begin systematically nominating for deletion every article in the remaining category. In other words, using underhanded means, he was attempting to censor Wikipedia of any meaningful coverage of the Japanese adult entertainment field. My limited Internet time has, since then, mostly been spent in re-working that list-- extensive sourcing, research, etc. It should be ready for presentation before very long. Once it is up, I fully intend to work on these articles, and make sure they're up to standard. I'll try to work on this particular one later today. If there was a discussion as to guidelines/notability standards in the pornography field, I missed it probably because I don't monitor the entire field, but just the Japanese subjects, which interest me. Regards. Dekkappai 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Thank you for the apology and clearing that up. I was unaware of the bad faith user or whatever you want to call them. Dismas|(talk) 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above, and I'm also perplexed by the attitude of trying to limit Japanese articles to the Japanese wikipedia. Neier 10:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 10:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Go categories

Several categories related to Go are listed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_2#Go (board game) categories

[edit] Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1998 season

Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1998 season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

New page for one table is too much. I suggest merge to Shunsuke Nakamura or delete Tulkolahten 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Other nominated articles:
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1997 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1999 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2000 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2001 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2002 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2002-2003 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2003-2004 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2004-2005 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2005-2006 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2006-2007 season

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tw6dd 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the content too, it's useless. -Amarkov blahedits 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Shunsuke Nakamura. - Neier 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Abbreviated Merge - other Celtic players do not have such lists, nor information on which day a goal was scored. The 'Goals in x season' articles should be deleted, but not unreasonable to first add to Shunsuke Nakamura a very short table summarising the total number of goals per each season (but not per game per season) David Ruben Talk 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Short table summarizing goals is already there in his parent article. Tulkolahten 08:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge all No other player has articles as ludicrous as this, and if they do, those articles should also be merged (or deleted). Dare I say "Nakamuracruft"? -- Kicking222 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all and any others like it we may have missed. The information can be added to the Shunsuke Nakamura article as noted by David Ruben, but these articles are rediculous. Every single fact does not need its own article. --Jayron32 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
If information is merged elsewhere, the article needs to be redirect to comply with the GFDL so the info is attributed to who put it there. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Added too, thanks. Tulkolahten 08:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Total numbers of goals are a common statistic, details about every single goal in a match or season are too granular a topic for inclusion (be it in the main article or as a separate one). - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just finished merging the tables, and added it to his article after a slight format change. Neier 11:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Great, I think we should change community consensus to delete these articles when all already mergerd in the parent article. Tulkolahten 11:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. There is always a danger of too much indiscriminate information being collected about sports figures by rapid fans, and this is Exhibit A. I accept that standards of notability are notoriously lax for sport (who else can explain why we have articles on reserve goalkeepers for English second division teams?), but this really is a bridge too far. Legis 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Abbreviated Merge Same as David Ruben. Nakamura is Japan's David Beckham, so there are a lot of people who would disagree that his goals aren't notable (especially if you've seem some of his goals...). But it is kind of ridiculous. Either merge them into Nakamura's main article or create one article for all his goals. Captkrob 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is far more detail than RSSSF.com and most sports almanacs have. We should reduce the data to total goals scored each season, merge it in Nakamura's article, and get rid of the rest. We shouldn't set a precedent leading to databases of every single goal scored by Pele, Maradona, and every other notable footballer. Djcastel 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Josef Bican had 643 league goals and Pelé 636 goals, pretty long article should it be :-) Tulkolahten 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Sharkface217 05:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or just delete. I don't care. Just do something with it.Patstuarttalk|edits 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Delete per Wikipedia is not an indescriminate list of information. Patstuarttalk|edits 18:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as Neier has already merged the content with Shunsuke Nakamura, I agree with Tulkolahten. DrKiernan 15:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all: Where's all of Theirry Henry's goals of one article. Oh, that's right, there isn't one. Someone's obsessed. Very pointless 86.20.53.195 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletions sorting/Kazakhstan

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletions sorting/Korea


[edit] Malaysia

[edit] Abdul Razak Mohaideen

Abdul Razak Mohaideen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Person seems non-notable (100 google results), went 2 months with zero references or any verifiable information added. Should be deleted. Plus, IMDb profile contains only 2 films and no info. Wizardman 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • k: Tag for cleanup and references instead Akihabara 02:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It's been tagged for months on both cleanup and references, as well as wikification. Those would be hard to acomplish with so little information on him. --Wizardman 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails both WP:BIO and WP:PROF, and w/ 2 IMDb hits, doesn't look like it would pass either. SkierRMH 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above concerns. — Seadog 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete searched with Arabic, no results. ← ANAS Talk? 19:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)"
  • Keep & possibly just stub it (that appears to be an essay just c&pasted). regards this nomination, 2 mnths with those templates obviously not enough when the wit who put them there didn't bother categorising it, please note this, article wasn't brought to the attention of anyone who might know the area (i've {{Malaysia-bio-stub}}ed it & found 1 relevant category. please pay more attention & remember WP:BIAS. also, anas, arabic not the best language to search for malaysian films/directors  ⇒ bsnowball  15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Automatic delete candidates

(PROD-tagged) pages, culled from Category:Proposed deletion

[edit] Ongoing deletion debates

Deletion debates culled from WP:AFD and WP:MFD

[edit] Naeem Ahsan

Naeem Ahsan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non Notable Pakistani journalist. Very few google hits. I have personally read his articles in Urdu newspapers' IT sections which are usually translations from English articles but thats what journalists do: write articles in newspapers. Claims are unverifiable from internet as no. of GHits suggest voldemortuet 17:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, if we include into notability to help underdeveloped areas to obtain basic computer literacy it could be notable, but I don't find any evidence of that. Anybody else knows more? Alf photoman 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if we consider the subject notable, the article is short of WP:V. voldemortuet 17:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mubashir Zaidi

Mubashir Zaidi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

NN Pakistani journalist. The article is autobiographical voldemortuet 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Vote changed to Neutral (see discussion below). 'Not only a Los Angeles Times and BBC News reporter, but he appears to have been the subject of notable persacution of journalists in Pakistan.[17][18] --Oakshade 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Does being a reporter for BBC News and LA Times assert notability (unless there is a notable achievement)? The persecution claim does account for a case of notability. There are about 2000 Ghits for the search "Mubashir Zaidi". Many include news reports written by the subject of the article himself which are available online. The links related to persecution claims, come from a single incident reported in news stories which was not even mentioned in the article. The article is started and mainly contributed by the user with the same name as the subject of the article. voldemortuet 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think a reporter for major news outlets such as those, not to mention a producer for a major network in one of the most populous countries on earth, is a major assertion of notablility. Of course we'll find articles written by the subject because he's a reporter who write articles. Yes, it appears that the subject might have written this article himself, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable. And the persecution claim orginates from Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, which is independent of this person. --Oakshade 23:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll regard a journalist from these outlets notable only if he/she has got some notable achievements. Although autobiography doesn't account for deletion but it does show conflict of interest. The main notability about the subject (to which I agree)is the persecution incident which is perhaps one of the few things about the article that are verifiable. Although persecution claim is a part of a long series of events related to persecution of journalists in Pakistan[19][20]. Unless reliable sources are found to validate the whole article, it remains a potential candidate for deletion. As an alternative I suggest to stub the article focussing on the subject as a target of persecution in Pakistan till the whole contents in the article are verified and sourced. I would also like to hear from some experienced wikipedian on the notability of journalists. voldemortuet 16:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This touches on an inherent problem with the recent attempted deletions of journalists. It's ironic that we use articles from The Los Angeles Times and BBC News as examples of published works from reliable sources that establish notability, yet a person who actually writes those published works is considered not-notable to some people. --Oakshade 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This Mubashir Zaidi has no relation with the reporter of Los Angeles Times. That's why BBC and Los Angeles Times references are irrelevent.


  • The editor who created the article has edited the article claiming that the subject has no relation with the person having the same name reporting for LA Times. The above comments from an unregistered user is stating the same claim. voldemortuet 20:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That is very interesting. Two journalists with the same name who are or have been stationed in Pakistan. Who would've thought? I know the name might be common in south Asia, but still... Kudos to the editor/creator for pointing that out. Respect! --Oakshade 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Thanks a lot to all of you who took interest in this article. Yes I created my page myself. If you think it should be deleted, then please do it. I have no objection. Mr. Mubashir Zaidi, reporter of Los Angeles Times is a Islamabad based journalist and we haven't met. My home town is Karachi but I am living in Sharjah and working for Geo TV. I would be happy if someone like to contact me mubashirzaidi@hotmail.com... Mubashir Zaidi 5:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


I have read articles of Mubashir Zaidi in daily Jang and sports magazines. I can remember that he won a TV Quiz ten years ago. I recognized him by his photograph on this page. He is surely that Quiz master. It was a news for me that he is now a TV Producer. Wow... Don't delete his page because we admire him. Humaazeem

  • I am feeling sorry to take part in this debate. Mubashir Zaidi was a contributor of daily Jang, daily The News, weekly Sports Times, daily Public, monthly Cricketer and many other newspapers at a time. Actually he was a cricket statistician and also compiled a book. I have a copy of 1996 edition of Wisden (people say it cricketer's bible) and I can see his name there. nasrrullah 8 December 2006
  • Straightforward Delete - fails standard, as I see it, set out in WP:BIO. Eusebeus 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - article does not assert or establish notability of subject. --Chondrite 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Articles for deletion

[edit] Sri Lanka

[edit] Taiwan

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Taiwan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

  • adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
  • removing closed AFDs.
  • removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

  • tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Taiwan}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Taiwan}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Tajikistan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

  • adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
  • removing closed AFDs.
  • removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

  • tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Tajikistan}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Tajikistan}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

[edit] Tajikistan

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Deletion_sorting_Asia_45df.html"